Yeah so it’s really not. I get it and I do like it. It’s just not ideal for people who work honestly. Least with the other system I could walk away for 5 days when I work 6p to 6a and nothing would happen. Here I just lose my place and never really get anywhere.
I can’t personally be playing this game 4 to 8 hours a day to get up towards the 1000 and under crowd.
Now I’m not saying to change it because that’s not gonna happen, and I don’t expect it too. I would honestly hope that in the future tc would think long and hard about how to create a system that maybe caters to both groups if they can?
Like I said I do enjoy seeing how high up I can get. I was 2700 in control as of last night because @SnubbS wants to keep playing tdm over it. Which fine long as I’m having fun right…
so you actually cared about being onyx/diamond/masters? you know none of those ranks were even worth while… if you are actually good at the game you got masters in less than 1 or 2 days. it was that easy. i played 1 day and i’m already top 500 in 2v2 gnasher/ top 1000 in execution/and top 1000 in escalation. don’t blame you working for being bad at the game. i’m 26 and also work a full time job, i just don’t suck at the game then complain. your rank doesn’t matter in gears. sorry to burst your bubble.
Hes playing control and TDM,they are far more populated and as such have far more competition to hit 1000 and under.
If he is good and worthy of whatever reward they are giving, some guy that is investing more time to gears can get the reward and stop him from getting it, not based on skill but time played and as such is not a competent way to reward skill if anything its just a reward for playing the longest.
But we all know this, no one needs the glorified leaderboard explained to them.
Completely agree. Unfortunately, so many people complained about it which was the impetus for the new, and imo, worse ranking systems. I hope Gears 6 has a ranking system more similar to G4.
The previous gears point system with some added ranks (maybe a tier below bronze like tin, and a tier above gold like platinum) could have been pretty good. I feel that system was being limited by the comparatively few ranks Gears uses.
Ranked leaderboards are fine, but basing the entire system on them was a mistake. They should be an addition to a tiered ranking system, not a replacement for one.
Legit lol after we finished Control the other day I played a little bit of Guardian and Execution, 1st 3 Games of Execution I even played this Op, already 4000
Our session was also 1st time I played Control in this system and I was at 12k just as comparison right there.
On the old system when you got to a certain level, you were expected to win several matches before a loss. I bet you would win several more regaining those points. If not, maybe you’re skill didn’t match that level and it was a correction more in line with your skill.
All I know is I was an Onyx 1 player on the old system. Players above me, on average, played better and conversely for those below. If I improved enough to reach Onyx 2 (and stay there) it would really mean something to me, that I was improving. The systems since then don’t give you this sense of where you’re skill is and if you are improving.
I get the whole ‘MVP but still go down’ thing but the developer streams back then explained how that can happen. Maybe you were the highest ranked person in the lobby. You were supposed to MVP. Maybe you just didn’t MVP by a large enough margin. Again, when you get high enough in rank, there are much fewer in your echelon and you are expected to perform very well in relation to others and maybe you played well but not well enough in that case.
